[Conor Friedersdorf]
Bob Wright* is upset about recent immigration raids in California.
The sympathy I feel for illegal immigrants who've established roots in the United States is hard to exaggerate. Were I a poor citizen of Mexico or one of its southern neighbors, I'd do my utmost to get to America, legally if possible, but illegally if need be. The fate of my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would be a weightier concern than any qualms I'd have about committing a misdemeanor without victims (well, sort of without victims -- the cumulative effect of illegal immigration is damaging, but the cost imposed by a law-abiding illegal immigrant is very small, or perhaps even non-existent depending on your income level and industry).
Is it really the case, however, that the United States sent a clear signal to illegal immigrants that they could reside here without incident? The act of physically sneaking across a border under cover of darkness cannot help but impart that on some level your presence is being actively discouraged. The illegal immigrants I've interviewed over the years were constantly worried about workplace raids, even during lulls in enforcement, and painfully aware that lots of Americans objected to their presence in the country.
It's tricky to tease out the signal that "America" is sending -- the reality is that we're sending lots of different signals. Nor is this unique to immigration. Certain signals suggest that Americans want lots of cocaine, prostitutes and pirated music. The large market for these -- and their varying level of tolerance by law enforcement -- can hardly be taken by drug dealers, pimps and Napster copycats as permission to break the law.
So what is the most legitimate signal that the United States is sending about immigration? Imperfect though it is, I'd have to say that the laws duly enacted by Congress are the best expression of the true desires of our polity. Opinion polls confirm that a majority of Americans have long wanted immigration laws enforced more stringently than is the case.
Personally, I oppose illegal immigration, favor a border wall and believe that a large population of non-citizen residents, particularly concentrated into enclaves, is corrosive of self-government -- it cannot be healthy to have municipalities where a large proportion of residents cannot vote for the elected officials they live under.
But like Bob Wright, I don't want law-abiding illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. Instead I favor these measures:
1) Large fines for companies caught knowingly employing illegal immigrant labor.
2) An expensive border wall that makes it much harder to get here illegally, thus enabling us to adopt generous policies to handle those already here without creating an incentive for further illegal immigration.3) An amnesty that kicks in after illegal immigration is drastically cut.
4) Higher levels of legal immigration.
5) Resistance to a guest worker program at all costs.
Perhaps I'll post again to defend these proposals at greater length.
Bob Wright is also suspicious that the Bush Administration is orchestrating immigration raids for political purposes. I can't blame him.
Laws of great consequence, when sporadically enforced, afford great potential for government actors to abuse their power, whether for political gain, to advantage certain corporations over competitors (raid them), etc. I expect this will be a problem whether John McCain or Barack Obama is elected this fall. It is unimaginable that a newly elected administration would act on immigration without considering the political implications.
*My boss at Bloggingheads.tv, it should be noted.
Bob Wright is also suspicious that the Bush Administration is orchestrating immigration raids for political purposes.
As opposed to those more enlightened politicians who pass laws for their personal enrichment?
I've never said this before at Megan's blog, and probably never will again, but here goes...
Great post, and I agree completely.
I'm going to go ahead and say yes to #4 on your list. In fact, hell yes. My support for all the other elements of your list is predicated on it.
There are many, many skilled, intelligent, valuable potential citizens trying to get permission legally to reside here. They followed (and are following) the rules: we should preferentially let them in before we give amnesty to those who didn't.
"Imperfect though it is, I'd have to say that the laws duly enacted by Congress are the best expression of the true desires of our polity."
The problem with that statement is it can be used to justify anything, no matter how immoral. Laws do not always equal justice.
Once upon a time, this nation believed in the notion that, slavery aside, all men had certain inalienable rights. Arbitrary immigration limits are nothing more than an attempt by some people to alienate the rights of other people. As long as a person pays their rent and basically follows the same rules we have for citizens, they should be allowed to live and work here.
Nelson, the passage you quote makes no claim about whether laws enacted by Congress are just -- it makes the claim that laws enacted by Congress are the most legitimate expression of our polity's preferences on the subject of illegal immigration.
The signal we are sending is that we have a huge demand for cheap labor. We price citizens out of that market with payroll taxes and workplace regulation.
Why is anyone surprised when an underground labor market springs up? Why is anyone surprised when illegal immigrants flock to fill the demand?
If you don't want tax evasion you can either tighten enforcement or reduce the tax rate to a tolerable level. I think the second alternative is more practical. Tighter enforcement will only make the coyotes and labor brokers more violent and rapacious.
Yes Condor. I did not say the statement was false. I merely tried to point out that just because the majority wants a certain action performed doesn't necessarily mean we should take that action. The founders understood the concept that the majority may want to take away the rights of minority groups or individuals, which is one reason we have the Bill of Rights.
I mostly agree with this: The signal we are sending is that we have a huge demand for cheap labor. We price citizens out of that market with payroll taxes and workplace regulation.
But I'd say that our demand for cheap labor is one among many signals we are sending, not "the" signal we are sending.
Why is anyone surprised when an underground labor market springs up? Why is anyone surprised when illegal immigrants flock to fill the demand?
Indeed it is unsurprising. I'd argue, however, that the best way to alleviate the black market in labor is to let lots more people enter the United States legally , make it marginally harder to come illegally, and reduce the incentive for hiring illegal labor by fining those who do it severely.
None of these measures necessitates treating the illegal immigrants already here inhumanely, which is a big plus.
Tighter enforcement will only make the coyotes and labor brokers more violent and rapacious.
My hope and suspicion is that a border wall, properly conceived, will reduce the number of illegal immigrants who come through coyotes, and marginally increase the number who overstay their visas, a trade-off that, if it works as I believe it will, helps to freeze out rapacious coyotes.
I acknowledge, however, that I could be wrong about this last point.
The author's beliefs are based upon an oxymoron; "law abiding illegal aliens." If illegal aliens were guilty of only a misdemeanor (crossing the border illegally) the author might just get away with his sophomoric proposal. The truth, and the facts, are that to remain and work in this Sovergn Nation illegal aliens must and do commit numerous Federal Felonies daily. (Document fraud, Identity theft, False Swearing- just to name a few)
The author is a good slight of hand Propagandist; he deftly mixes law, fact and a play on the readers good nature in an attempt to convience the reader that Amnesty is what is needed.
The difference between the author and most citizens is the citizens' belief that there can not, will not, be another amnesty. If we, as a Nation, reward bad behaviour- we will encourage more bad behavior.
Remember the 1986 "One time only" amnesty? That was for only 3 million criminal aliens. Been there, done that!
To the author, nice try---no cigar.
By the way, this writer is a retired attorney with 24 years experience in criminal defense. I was am still in the real world. I am not a bloger who reads other blogs and the work of other wordsmiths and continually repeats the same propaganda that constantly circulates in the media and on the net.
Again, nice try.
The author's beliefs are based upon an oxymoron; "law abiding illegal aliens."
Uhm, I realize that the ability to split a hair four ways is a critical component of being both a blog forum commenter and an attorney, but I think the author was clear here: he is referring to immigrants whose desire is to live and work peaceably within the United States and are prevented from doing so only by immigration laws, rather than a proclivity to indulge other criminal tendencies that would also get a legal immigrant or citizen into trouble.
"Arbitrary immigration limits are nothing more than an attempt by some people to alienate the rights of other people." Nelson
you aught to check your history, Nelson... We have had various Immigration quotas and acts since we became a country, in essence. {wiki is cheating, I know...]
US.Immigration Acts
On the contrary, immigration limits are no different than putting a door on the front of your house. It is a right to be secure in your person, and by extention your house. For that reason it is a right and a responsibility of a country to police it's own boarders, and decide who may enter and leave.
The problem moving down the road is that we have 2 very long borders, both of which are totally permeable. It doesn't seem bad, because the Canadians aren't all that interested in coming here, so we just have a problem with Mexico. The issue has been going on in a way that the gevernment has been understanding since at least the 50's. Why they didn't take the necessary steps to control the border then, or any time since, I don't know.
Just because we have been making that mistake for a long time, doesn't mean we are required to continue making it. Immigration debate is totally unfruitful UNTIL we can control the boarder. If you cannot control a thing, you cannot set limits on it.
In addition, there is no security at all when we have a permeable border, but NO-ONE is serious about securtiy, just the appearence of it.
People argue that we should just let everyone in, but this is the reason we have 12 million now. The set immigration reform in the mid- 80's but they did nothing to actually make it happen, so... those other ~9million people came. If we continue to do nothing, that is what will continue to happen. People come because they need the money, and we aren't making it hard to come here. Do you think maybe people in Mexico would have a REASON to fix their own country if they had to stay there?
aMouseforallSeasons said:
is referring to immigrants whose desire is to live and work peaceably within the United States
Well, they also desire to use our infrastructure, and I am sure a lot of them desire to use our social services too. Low wage earners with large families contribute essentially nothing to either of these.
If we, really, are worried about the Financial costs of Immigration, maybe we should stop Socializing so many of those costs, found, throughout our Economy..Past that, at this juncture, 'enforcement', belated, as it is, is merely another terror tool in the hands of our current Government.
Conor,
those 'coyotes', you are concerned with, like many other Purveyors in our Economy, only have customers to the extent of the Ignorance, found, extant in their target audience..
Border enforcement is not the responsibility of employers, landlords, hospital administrators, etc. It is a federal government responsibility.
If employers are to be fined for hiring illegals, they must be able to instantaneously separate illegals from legals, such as by logging on to a federal website and getting instantaneous confirmation that a name, an age, a SS number, a green card number, etc match federal records. That way, they can refuse employment immediately, rather than employing and training for 6 months (at considerable cost) before finding out that the employee is illegal.
Forged SS cards and drivers licenses, etc. are too easy, too cheap and too good for employers to detect.
Also, the feds must clamp down on "sanctuary cities", which refuse to enforce the law against illegals. Cutting off federal funds and requiring the states to cut off funds would be a good start. Jailing the mayor, the city council and police chief would also work.
Ignoring the law doesn't work, except to encourage ignoring other laws as well.
Re: It doesn't seem bad, because the Canadians aren't all that interested in coming here
Actually, plenty of Canadians come here. Where I grew up in Michigan we had three neighbor families with Canadian roots. The difference is, first, that most Canadians come legally, secondly that they culturally almost indistinguishable from Americans (at least in the northern tier of states and not counting the Quebecois) and thirdly, they tend to be well educated and highly skilled.
Re: If employers are to be fined for hiring illegals, they must be able to instantaneously separate illegals from legals, such as by logging on to a federal website and getting instantaneous confirmation that a name, an age, a SS number, a green card number, etc match federal records.
Problem with this idea is that there are too many errors in federal databases for this to work. You'd end up with native-born American citizens, people whose families have been here for 300 years, refused employment because some bureaucrat made a typo years ago. There would lawsuits, severely unfavorable publicity and eventually vast public outcry. Even the passport office post-9-11 recognizes this fact and so has several alternate means for a person to validate his citizenship when there are public records glitches. That works for passports because (usually) they aren't needed immediately and the passport office is in the business of doing this sort of thing. Businesses aren't, and shouldn't be. For small businesses especially this would be ruinous. Nor can hiring decisions be postponed for weeks while ID is being investigated. So here's my suggestion: let the federal government do all this up front by issuing everyone an ID card which would in turn be used for employment validation. Where record errors exist the government can do the same work that the passport office does. The ID card should be tamper-proof but very minimalist: just a name and a photo and maybe an expiration date. No birthdate or SS# or address or anything else (so they do not become one-stop shop for ID thieves). They should be phased in very gradually (say over five years) and be provided entirely free for all citizens and legal aliens over 18.
Re: Forged SS cards and drivers licenses, etc. are too easy, too cheap and too good for employers to detect.
SS cards are very easy to forge, but states have toughened up a lot on driver licenses. Anything can be forged with the right resources, but if it costs $5000 to forge a license, passport or ID card, that would put them out of reach for most illegal aliens.
Robert Wright has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Illegal immigrants haven't been "accepted" since 1986. They've been widely HATED since 1986. There hasn't been a single year since 1986 wherein the majority of Americans didn't want illegal immigrants kicked out of the country.
Wright must just be so far into the left-wing echo chamber that he truly believes Americans were accepting of illegal immigration.
Conor -
I agree with most of what you support, but why this last one?
"Resistance to a guest worker program at all costs."
This allows a family to stay home, not uprooting the children or leaving their extended family and friends, and yet one parent can travel part of the time to earn money and come home again. The visitor might also learn about how the US operates and about the advantages of the rule of law, resisting corruption, etc., and then take those ideas home again.
I lived and worked in another country (legally) for 6 years and learned a lot from the experience. I see nothing wrong with guest workers. What is your objection? The whole "second class citizen" argument I've heard from others is just silly - while here legally, they'd have the same rights as other legal residents, except obvious ones such as voting, etc., which I never expected as a guest in someone else's country. My children were born in another country yet got no right of abode simply because we were legally living there, and that made perfect sense to me.
For some jobs and some workers, a guest worker program can offer the best of both worlds. Why should people be forced to permanently uproot to get jobs, in cases where the needs of the employers and the preferences of the workers favor seasonal alternatives? Why take away options?
SwissArmyD-
The law in 1790 to 1882 was that "all free white persons" could come here and if they showed "good moral character" after 5 years of living here they could become citizens.
We could have the same thing today, except leave out the white part because we're beyond that level of racism now. This would be quite reasonable.
As any believer in free markets should understand, there will be high levels of illegal immigration to the US so long as there remains a dramatic disparity in income between the US and Mexico. Cracking down on knowing employment of illegal immigrants, particularly in industries that pay wages below the minimum wage (such as fruit-picking), would help deter illegal immigration, but the impact will be marginal; it will do nothing to touch the vast amount of informal employment available in the US. The border wall solution is the kind of ludicrous technological magical solution to social problems long worshiped by right-wing America; these things never, ever work. The US-Mexico border is about a hundred times as long as Israel's border with the West Bank, the population density is a tiny fraction of same, and the success of the border wall in Israel at stopping tiny numbers of terrorists depends on Israel's ability to enforce a brutal occupation on the far side of the wall; the US has no control over what happens on the Mexican side of that border.
Any approach to illegal immigration that doesn't include a major attempt to raise Mexican wages is not serious. In the 1970s Europe had a north-south income divide similar to the US-Mexican one. Mass migration from Spain and Greece to northern Europe started in the '60s and '70s but slowed and stopped as the effects of economic stimulus packages for southern European states took hold. The biggest part of the solution to the US's immigration problem is economic growth in Mexico, and the US needs to start thinking about more serious efforts to promote that.
We could have the same thing today, except leave out the white part because we're beyond that level of racism now. This would be quite reasonable.
Since we have a welfare state now (unlike then), we would have to add "and contribute more in taxes than they use in benefits" to the list of requirements.
We can have a welfare state OR free immigration. We can't have both.
I lived and worked in another country (legally) for 6 years and learned a lot from the experience. I see nothing wrong with guest workers. - Ann
For every one of you, there are 100 descendants of Turkish guest workers in Germany who never went home. If you have no problem with eventually granting citizenship to the children of guest workers in the US, and thus obviously allowing the guest workers themselves to remain permanently due to family repatriation, then you could support a guest worker program. But in that case I'm not sure why you would call it a "guest worker" program; it's an immigration track.
Guest worker programs the world over, from the Persian Gulf to Japan, don't work.
I favor a wall that looks just like the Great Wall of China - only taller, wider and longer to prove we Americans have the best wall ever built!
Such a wall would be visible from outer space. Right now it can be used to keep Mexicans out but, if Obama is elected, it can be used the keep Americans in!
The wall will certainly cost less than the farm bill and it will provide enough jobs to eliminate unemployment in both the US and Mexico. Further, it will become a massive tourist attraction, especially if Disney uses it as the basis of a theme park.
Imagine - a 2000 mile 10 minute thrill ride along the top of the wall billed as the world's longest, fastest ride!
Dian, you have failed to show this.
I'd argue that immigrants who can raise to funds to get into the US are of the type that will "contribute more in taxes than they use in benifits", especially when you consider the massive GDP windfall from the huge increase in labor supply and resulting effects on tax revenue.
Remember, the EITC(The largest "welfare" program) encourages work. That is, the number of hours that poor people work is higher with the program then it would have been otherwise.
Other than the EITC, the only other "welfare programs" are Medicare and the Food Stamp Program(Unemployment insurance is temporary, and is justified by modern economics, Stieglitz's efficiency wages specifically, so I don't count that as welfare). Remember, EITC benefits are both conditional and proportional to work.
We can easily roll the budget of the Food Stamp Program into the EITC, and this would be a good idea, immigrants or not.
Medicare has two parts, health care for the poor and health care for the disabled.
Health care for the poor can be rolled into the EITC. Either by transforming it into an insurance policy where co-pay decreases as work increases, or by simply taking the yearly expected value and rolling it to the EITC outright.
Health-care for the disabled can be kept as is. To prevent disabled people from flooding into the US, we simply prevent people from claiming disability unless they've been in the country for 5 years.
If this is too inegalitarian for your taste, subsidize private-sector disability insurance.
So Dan, tell me why those minor changes wouldn't be enough to make both free immigration and "The welfare state" compatible?
"Guest worker programs the world over, from the Persian Gulf to Japan, don't work."
Joe, that depends on your definition of "work". If you mean "Causing massive improvements in the economy, as well as lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty, making individuals in both countries better off", then yes, Guest Worker programs work extremely well.
If on the other hand, you believe that maintaining ethnic homogeneity is not only the valid goal of a state, but one that comes above the economic well being of citizens, then no, they do not work.
If you mean "Causing massive improvements in the economy, as well as lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty, making individuals in both countries better off", then yes, Guest Worker programs work extremely well.
If you mean "creating two-track feudal rentier societies in which the majority of people living and working there have few if any rights and are subject to mistreatment without redress," then, yes, guest worker programs work extremely well.
America is a society based on equal status for everyone. Guest worker programs are for countries like Saudi Arabia, where a privileged class rules and owns everything, and hires drones to do the dismal business of actually working for a living.
Brooksfoe,
There is no reason that Guest Workers need to be given inferior status to anyone else, other than a right to vote.
While I'd prefer an easy path to citizenship as well, many foreign workers would prefer not to stay in this country permanently, and I see nothing wrong with that.
The scenario you described simply has not happened in any democracy with a guest worker program(And not for a lack of data!). In fact, it is limited to cash-rich dictatorships with extremely small native populations. Something tells me that guest-worker programs are not the controlling variable.
The burden is on you to demonstrate an actual mechanism by which a properly implemented guest worker program would cause this nation harm.
4) Higher levels of legal immigration.
Higher than what, exactly? And do you know what you're even saying?
Right now our legal immigration rate is just over 1 million people per year. It hits 1.3 million when you count the children these legal immigrants have. Throw in illegal immigrants and co. and the number climbs to above 2 million.
Do you even have any clue what changes that effects on our population? You are increasing the population by about 0.67% per year - given the fact that virtually all immigrants today are from non-European countries you are also changing the people by that much, as well.
And this is where people simply don't understand the math. If I give you a loan for 0.67% annually you think that's terrific. If I tell you I'll pay 0.67% on your savings or you're only getting a 0.67% raise this year you think that sucks. Either way the rate of 0.67% is stuck in your head as a rather small number.
But we're talking not about salary or savings or loans but about nations and populations - and even 0.67%, effected annually, year upon year, adds up. It means that by 2100 at least close to half our population will be descended from people who weren't even living here in 2000.
Now just in terms of numbers, our population, by current trends, is headed for anywhere between 600 million and 1 billion people by the 2100. Is that the country you want for your descendants?
(a href="http://www.mnforsustain.org/images/pop_us_projection_peb_2000-2100.jpg">see here).
And the numbers argument assumes, of course, that otherwise people are all exactly alike: that given a substantially different people we won't have a different culture and a different form of government (is it really fair to assume that 300-600 million new people will create an atmosphere of greater tolerance?)
Border enforcement is not the responsibility of employers, landlords, hospital administrators, etc. It is a federal government responsibility.
Two words: Bull Oney
The federal government has lots of laws it foists on employers. A hospital is expected to make sure its doctors, nurses and technicians are licensed to practice. An airline is expected to make sure its pilots' training and licenses are current. A trucking company is expected to make sure its drivers are legally licensed. And every employer is expected to serve as the IRS's personal tax collector by withholdng taxes for the feds (and usually the state).
There are a lot of laws employers must obey related to who they employ and how. Requiring them to make sure they're employing people legally eligible to work is just one more. Funny its the only burden on businesses liberals ever seem to object to.
Arbitrary immigration limits are nothing more than an attempt by some people to alienate the rights of other people. As long as a person pays their rent and basically follows the same rules we have for citizens, they should be allowed to live and work here.
I think that your front door is an arbitrary restriction on my right to your living room.
A nation consists of property - property privately owned; all that which is not privately owned is owned by the government on behalf of its citizens, for their benefit. You can say this is "arbitrary" but no more arbitrary than private property. What gives Ted Turner the right to 1 million acres in Montana? Because he bought it? From who?
To leave a nation open to any and all who want to come is to reduce the value of government-held private property - often paid for, fought for, improved by its citizens - to zero. Theft, in other words.
What would happen under a policy of unrestricted immigration to the US is basic applied science: diffusion, specifically. Under a situation of entirely open borders (the US only, since the rest of the world isn't going to buy into your insanity) people would keep coming to this country until the situation here was not significantly better than that in their homeland.
Which homeland? Any homeland: England, Mexico, El Salvador, Albania, Somalia...
Somalia: say hello to your nation's future.
The whole illegal immigration problem has been "allowed" to happen by our politicians catering to big business and special interests. Leaving illegals immigrants out of the equation, let's address the politicians and big business.
Let's call it the "How you liking it now Bill".
1. We go back and drop the politicians wages to the 1986 level and hold them there till the mess is corrected. The politicians haven't fullfilled their job requirements or their oaths to office, so they shouldn't have a problem with that.
2. Businesses employing immigrants will have to fund medical insurance for the workers. Why should the taxpayers fund the "Welfare Workforce".
I'm sure the problem of illegal immigration will be corrected quickly.
Re: A hospital is expected to make sure its doctors, nurses and technicians are licensed to practice. An airline is expected to make sure its pilots' training and licenses are current.
Which is easy to do and does not impose a significant burden. The licensing agencies issue licenses which can then be shown to the hospital or airline and verified quickly. We do not have a "worker license" program in place and there is no easy and error-free way to verify an applicant's citizenship status. The government itself has admitted that the SSA database (which was not designed with this purpose in mind) has too many errors to serve the purpose. And by the way, does anyone feel a bit queasy at the concept of a "license to work" being issued by the government? I'm not any kind of ibertarian, but I do detect a faint whiff of fascism about that one.
"A nation consists of property - property privately owned"
Of course, this is why we have no right to tell a land lord who they may or may not rent to. We have no right to prevent someone from selling land to a foreigner. We have no right to tell a land owner to not to live on his land. This only applies if we believe in private property of course, which I do.
Douglas -
"Under a situation of entirely open borders ... people would keep coming to this country until the situation here was not significantly better than that in their homeland."
We have open borders between states. Has everyone from our poorest state (by per capita income) Mississippi to our richest one Maryland?
JonF -
"And by the way, does anyone feel a bit queasy at the concept of a "license to work" being issued by the government? I'm not any kind of ibertarian, but I do detect a faint whiff of fascism about that one."
I feel the same way. It's freaky that the government would try so hard to prevent people from working. It's also unjust, unethical, immoral and goes against the spirit of our nation. The spirit that says anyone has the right to strike it out on their own and create a better life for themselves and their families without government getting in the way.
Douglas,
Let's look at some basic applied science.
Europe has opened it's borders to workers from it's new members, who are much poorer than Europe itself. The result? Income per capita increased, every year, in every european country. Both sides were better off.
Or consider that before 1920, we essentially had open borders in this country, and every other. Was there any regression to the mean? Was anyone made worse off?
Brooksfoe -
I don't think we have the same idea of a guest worker program. I meant the program as it has been used in the past in the US, for seasonal workers (H2B?). If the workers will be here year-round, then they're regular immigrant workers. But I think that there should also be a program for people to come, say, every summer for the harvest or the tourism industry or whatever, and then go home to their families for the rest of the year.
But whether they're seasonal or not, I don't see how guest workers coming into the US legally would lead to "creating two-track feudal rentier societies in which the majority of people living and working there have few if any rights and are subject to mistreatment without redress." It seems that you're describing the current system, where illegal workers are vulnerable to mistreatment.
Right now our legal immigration rate is just over 1 million people per year. It hits 1.3 million when you count the children these legal immigrants have. Throw in illegal immigrants and co. and the number climbs to above 2 million.
Do you even have any clue what changes that effects on our population?
Yes. I do have a clue about these changes. They translate into moderate population growth.
Legal immigration figures indeed include all people -- adults and children. Children who are born on US soil are not, of course, immigrants. They are Americans. I'd be very surprised if total immigration (legal + illegal) to the slumping US now exceeds 1.5 million. This gives us a net immigration rate about 1/3rd of the the one we had circa 1900. The reality is America's current immigration rate is extremely moderate -- even low -- by historical standards. And this is all set against the backdrop of a population whose natural rate of growth is following the longterm trend downward experienced by all rich countries.
If Americans were having ten kids like they used to a hundred years ago, I'd perhaps join the ranks of the restrictionists. But moderate population growth of the kind we're now experiencing is preferable to the decline lots of countries are beginning to suffer.
It means that by 2100 at least close to half our population will be descended from people who weren't even living here in 2000.
Is that intended to be troubling? I'd have to check to be sure, but I'm pretty sure none of my ancestors were living here in 1900, yet I feel pretty darned American.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about immigration policy, but the fact that a bunch of Americans 100 years from now will be descended from current immigrants doesn't strike me as one of them.
IMO, a better issue to be concerned about is how well we are assimilating immigrants. If we were doing that well, then the ancestry of someone 100 years hence probably won't be an issue at all. But I have my doubts on that score.
I'd happily support a guest worker program if;
1. Citizenship is no longer granted for immigrants simply because they are born in the US.
2. Such work does not become an unregulated path to citizenship.
Yes. I do have a clue about these changes. They translate into moderate population growth.
Moderate? You miss the point completely. Moderate population growth is not the same as a moderate return on your investment. Nations live for centuries. Obviously, no matter what nation is here, the amount of land is pretty much fixed. We will be at least doubling - and possibly tripling - our population in a single century, thanks to immigration alone. And those stats don't leave any room for the possibility that maybe our own descendants (as opposed to those of the immigrants) might want to do a little breeding of their own.
It's not "moderate" population growth - it's madness.
The reality is America's current immigration rate is extremely moderate -- even low -- by historical standards.
Historial standards are irrelevant. Standards of living are what matter. There were a lot fewer people here in 1900. There are 300 million here now. The amount of land we have is fixed. The number of forests we have is fixed. The amount of water we have - the Colorado River now runs dry to the Pacific; 36 states are now facing water shortages in the very near future - is fixed, also.
Or consider that before 1920, we essentially had open borders in this country, and every other. Was there any regression to the mean? Was anyone made worse off?
Transportation was less reliable - and more expensive. Communication was more difficult. The income disparity was not as wide. Knowledge was less available - people in lots of places didn't even know of the opportunities that existed here. The welfare state was non-existent.
And we sure as hell didn't have "open borders" - the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) kept Chinese out, and if any other group had been coming in large numbers Congress would've blocked them, also.
This gives us a net immigration rate about 1/3rd of the the one we had circa 1900.
The percentage of people in America who are immigrants is today about where it was in 1900 - roughly 14%. So to say our rate was triple then is absurd. We probably had higher immigration - but more people were also fgoing back home, too. Half of Italian immigrants eventually repatriated.
We will be at least doubling - and possibly tripling - our population in a single century, thanks to immigration alone.
I haven't seen any projections the country will treble its population this century -- although we may double it. But so what? These are manageable expansions for a country with nearly 4 million square miles of territory. Over the course of the 20th century, America's population increased nearly four-fold, and over the 19th, the increase was some eighteen fold. Again, the US is now growing much more slowly than in the past. On balance, I'd say that's a good thing. But why the pressing need to to ratchet down population growth even more drastically than is occurring naturally?
Historial standards are irrelevant. Standards of living are what matter.
Indeed they are. I reckon on balance the average Dutch person -- who lives in one of the most crowded nations on earth -- enjoys a standard of living at least as high as the average American. Similarly, there can be little doubt the average American of 2008 enjoys a much higher standard of living than his much less crowded counterpart from a century ago. This obsession with lebensraum among the restrictionists is misguided, mistaken, and just plain weird.
These are manageable expansions for a country with nearly 4 million square miles of territory.
3 million. 500,000 of that is Alaska. About half of the rest is in the fairly arid Western US.
I haven't seen any projections the country will treble its population this century -- although we may double it.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2000/poptab1.prn
I would note that Census Bureau estimates are notoriously low - over the past 3-4 decades projected population growth has always been exceeded.
But why the pressing need to to ratchet down population growth even more drastically than is occurring naturally?
Our natural population growth is that growth due to breeding by native populations - so why the pressing need to ratchet it up through massive immigration?
Similarly, there can be little doubt the average American of 2008 enjoys a much higher standard of living than his much less crowded counterpart from a century ago.
Those improvements were due mostly to tehnology, particularly medical technology, as well as to the ability to tap more natural resources. In 1900 cars didn't exist, and no one even knew of the oilfields of the Permian Basin or Saudi Arabia. In case you haven't noticed what's really straining individua pocktbooks isn't the price of televisions or cell phones, but the costs of items limited by natural resources - building materials, oil, and even land. These are things that become more expensive the more people who want them.
This obsession with lebensraum among the restrictionists is misguided, mistaken, and just plain weird.
So I'm a Nazi because I'm concerned about overpopulation? That argumentum ad Hitlerum disqualifies itself.
3 million.
No, nearly 4 million. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own geography. Alaska is a real place, as is the western United States.
I would note that Census Bureau estimates are notoriously low - over the past 3-4 decades projected population growth has always been exceeded.
And I would note that recent history (Malthus, Club of Rome, Ehrlich, etc.) demonstrates that panicky projections about population growth should mostly be ignored.
Our natural population growth is that growth due to breeding by native populations - so why the pressing need to ratchet it up through massive immigration?
I don't advocate increasing the rate of America's population growth through "massive immigration." I think the gradually diminishing pace of population expansion we're now experiencing through a combination of fewer births and moderate immigration suits us perfectly. I simply see no need to push for the sharp reduction in population growth that would flow from restrictionist immigration policies.
Those improvements were due mostly to technology.
Um, yes, as will future improvements.
These are things that become more expensive the more people who want them.
I have no idea how limiting immigration is supposed to make "things" less expensive. I strongly suspect you have no idea, either, but I'd be delighted to hear your response.
So I'm a Nazi because I'm concerned about overpopulation?
I wouldn't call you a Nazi unless you advocated conquering new lands to relieve the crowding you're apparently so concerned with. Nonetheless an obsession with overpopulation in a nation with fewer than 90 persons per square mile strikes me as bizarre excess. In this country, of course, said obsession is typically accompanied by hand-wringing about the country's ethnic makeup, and a desire to use state power to engineer specific outcomes in this regard. I will confess to finding the whole thing vaguely fascistic.
No, nearly 4 million. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own geography. Alaska is a real place, as is the western United States.
3.8 million. My bad.
Yes, Alaska is a real place - a real place where not too many people want to live, obviously.
Continue on in your insanity.
In this country, of course, said obsession is typically accompanied by hand-wringing about the country's ethnic makeup, and a desire to use state power to engineer specific outcomes in this regard. I will confess to finding the whole thing vaguely fascistic.
So your argument is that it's not happy nice to worry about ethnic makeup? Well ethnic makeup isn't my biggest concern, but it is a concern and a legitimate one. I know of NO example of ANY seriously mutiethnic/multiracial country surviving FREELY and happily for very long. Can you name one? The United States does not yet count.
Experience seems to show that relatively homogeneous nations do better over time. But you would throw EXPERIENCE out the door for blind fanatical IDEOLOGY - fanatical because you have no experience other than your own naive beliefs; fanatical because the belief is held above question by politically correct thought police who make it a terminable offense to even seriously question the reality of multiracial societies.
a nation with fewer than 90 persons per square mile
One last thing: Have you ever given a single thought to just how many natural resources it takes to sustain the sort of lifestyle the average American wants to live? It's not just about land to build a home on, but all the oil, water, timber, stone, gravel, and God knows what else needed to build all those things. Don't forget to throw in food, water, and maybe a little extra space for a few of God's other creatures to live on.
90 people per square mile? That's 7 acres per person. Not that much aleady, even less when you cut it in half or in thirds.
A policy taking the USA to somewhere between 700 million and 1 billion people by the end of the century is pure insanity. Where do we go the century after that? OR maybe you don't even care.
So continue on in your libertarian open borders nonsense or your big business "screw the future" nonsense or your multiculti "we are the world" nonsense or your fundamentalist "be fruitful and multiply" nonsense. They are all equally insane policies leading us down the same road.
Mark, you have a shockingly mercantilist idea of resource consumption.
All of that oil, food, and water is traded on the world market. Prices go up for Americans whether Mexicans move to America or not.
know of NO example of ANY seriously mutiethnic/multiracial country surviving FREELY and happily for very long. Can you name one? The United States does not yet count.
What on God's good earth are you talking about? In 1740, 40% of the population of Virginia was black. How is that not a "multiethnic/multiracial country"? That's not even counting the Indians.
I know of NO example of ANY seriously mutiethnic/multiracial country surviving FREELY and happily for very long. Can you name one?
Yes, the United States of America. Australia. Canada. Britain.
Have you ever given a single thought to just how many natural resources it takes to sustain the sort of lifestyle the average American wants to live?
Sure I have. But again, what's any of that got to do with immigration? You may have a point with respect to the population of the planet, but here the news is mostly good: the world's human population is experiencing a sharp slowdown in its rate of growth. Anyway, I'll gladly join you in supporting higher energy taxes, public transportation improvements, increased funding for green technologies research, density zoning, stronger environmental protections, and an end to farm subsidies. Oh, you don't support such common sense policies? I'm shocked.
A policy taking the USA to somewhere between 700 million and 1 billion people by the end of the century is pure insanity.
I'm dubious we'll get to a billion, but even if we do, our descendents will enjoy much higher standards of living than we do today, as long as economic productivity continues to improve. And if productivity doesn't grow, even a radical and sharp reduction in the US population isn't going to help people live better. Again, even a cursory look at the map shows there is very little correlation between population density and living standards.
This country needs to stop the majority of its immigration until it re-reads its current policy (no more than 6% of any one ethnic group per year) and enforces it to the max. We also need to work on ethnic unity before we invite and/or allow more people into this country. This country has become "pots" of people each striving independently and politically for its own well being without regard to the impact of their desires on this country.
People are being killed, children are being wounded physically and emotionally and don't kid yourself for one minute that illegal immigration isn't responsible for at least part of our housing crisis. The American people deserve better than what they are receiving from their government in this regaard. Discrimination is prevelant. Employeers want illegals rather than American workers because of the acceptable lower pay. It's interesting America claims to have put slavery behind them but look who our biggest importer is, China. Look who the American companies prefer so they can pay them lower than the average wage, Hispanics. Until we rid ourselves of illegal immigration, punish the companies who have set up back to the days of slavery (only call it differently) and get our act together as one united country and not just groups of people who maintain an address that says USA, then we are headed for more and more problems. Didn't someone well respected once say the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing over and over the same way and expect a different result? No amnisty!! Period. The people who are on the other side of the borders don't seem to understand "This is the last time we do this." HA HA what a joke we are to even introduce this concept again.
One writer presents the concept that if they could provide a better life for their "children" they would enter illegally. My concept is not to have the children one cannot support right where they live at the moment the lights go down and unprotected sex is had. To hell with religion and if religion prevails in the bedroom, well one of the two invovled with sex needs to go take a cold shower and watch an old movie rather than to have a league of kids they expect the American people to foot the bill for. This is absolutely true. I have one Hispanic client who is one of 22 siblings, another one of 13. This is outrageous and abusive of the American citizens to deal with this mind set of paying for the welfare and birthing costs associated with these huge families. Seems as though there is a huge machine in force that requires the good jobs to be sent to third world countries and to let the people from their world countries in here illegally to over populate America and give what few jobs we have left to the head of those families. I'm done with this concept.